"Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals"
This statement is one that I both agree and disagree with. Were to there be security cameras in public places and the general public did not know about them, yes, it would probably catch criminals. But if evidence from these cameras were consistently used to convict criminals, people would catch on. Eventually criminals would either move their illegal activity away from public places or find a way to disable the cameras. Petty criminals may be stopped, but people who have a vested interest (personal or otherwise) in engaging in criminal activities are going to do them anyway. The only question is where. It could actually be easier to catch criminals without cameras because instead of being driven to more protected, secret places, criminals would be doing their deeds in more public, more populated areas where witnesses are more present. It's impossible to say for sure what the outcome would be of putting up security cameras everywhere, but the chances of them making very little impact are high, and the cost of putting them up in the first place would make it an ill advised choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I disagree and agree with this statement.Cameras used to prevent crim will be overall good for society however by doing this you invade the peoples constutional right to have privacy.
I disagree and agree with this statement.Cameras used to prevent crim will be overall good for society however by doing this you invade the peoples constutional right to have privacy.Shawnte Lowe...
**Its not an invasion or your constitution if we have traffic cameras and cameras in super malls and stores etc. It's perfectly legal
I agree with this statement because yes it would be a large consumer of money and resources and well maybe at first it would help but crime would just find other ways to deal with them. The thought is a good idea but people are too untrustworthy and in the long run would not benefit society.
Tenny Abbott
The statement should be viewed with some contempt. Cameras for the purpose of traffic control, inside private residences, and private businesses should be allowed. However, when those cameras step into the public domain, suddenly it becomes an invasion of our privacy. I certainly do not want my life on videotape, and i think it is safe to say that taping everything that happens in public would be a serious invasion of privacy.
I agree with audrey, the cost not worth the potential benefits (small anyway).
-Neil Hinnant
But Neil, there are cameras all over downtown. What do you mean by public? Because im pretty sure most places you go will have you on camera
A lot of people have said this before, but what do you do in public that you wouldn't want on camera? I know it's unsettling knowing that you are being monitored, but how is that different than someone on the bus looking at you across the aisle? It's a little bit weird, but it's doing you no harm. If the cameras are set up well, I think the benefits could outweigh the paranoia about invasion of privacy. It's not really your privacy in the first place, considering that you are in public and everybody walking around you can see what you are doing. If nobody is being exploited, and if nobody is abusing their power, then the system would probably work. But, of course, setting up elaborate security camera networks should not be the first priority for our tax dollars; it would help, but it wouldn't hurt to just do without it.
- Hannah Walhout
You make some good points. Criminals would most likely go into hiding to stay away from the cameras therefore making the cameras useless and a waste of money. Other people have mentioned that cameras in public places is invading privacy but this is not true. It is called a public place for a reason, anything you do is in the public domain. I agree with Audrey, camera would not necessarily catch criminals and they would likely be a waste of money.
Megan Flood
Post a Comment